Page 34 - March April 2021 TPA Journal

unreasonable searches and seizures were a person- Therefore, a defendant seeking to suppress
specific harm with a person-specific remedy. Not evidence must show not only that the police
just anyone could sue in trespass. Rather, the proper committed an unreasonable search or seizure, but
plaintiff was one who “ha[d] a property . . . in the also that the search or seizure “infringed [a Fourth
soil[] and actual possession by entry.” Amendment] interest of the defendant” himself.
All this history matters. It explains the Fourth A defendant can establish this personalized
Amendment’s requirement for specific warrants. It interest in one of two ways. First, he may object to
demarcates unreasonable searches and seizures. the “physical intrusion of a constitutionally
And it suggests the remedies for violations of protected area” in which he has a property interest.
Fourth Amendment rights. Of course, the And second, he may object to government action
complexities of history sometimes leave room for that violates a “reasonable expectation of privacy .
debate in answering these questions. But one thing . . in the place searched.” Either way, the Fourth
is beyond debate: the Fourth Amendment is not a Amendment standing inquiry is both defendant-
weapon that uninjured parties get to wield on and place-specific: it requires that a particular
behalf of others. As with the common law that defendant (the suppression movant) have a
preceded it, the Fourth Amendment protects property or privacy interest in a particular place
individuals’ security “in their persons,” “their . . . (the area searched).
houses,” “their . . . papers,” and “their . . . effects.” Here, the parties agree that the Government
It does not protect individuals’ security in the conducted a search when it used the GPS
property of someone else. coordinates from Verizon to locate Davis’s phone.
Modern doctrine incorporates this history in the But the district court held that Beaudion lacked
requirement of Fourth Amendment “standing.” standing to challenge that search and denied his
This “standing” concept ensures that those suppression motion accordingly. And we must
invoking the Amendment can vindicate only their “uphold the district court’s ruling to deny the
personal security against unreasonable searches suppression motion if there is any reasonable view
and seizures. And it requires us to reject Beaudion’s of the evidence to support it.” To determine
claim. whether Beaudion has standing, we first identify
According to the Supreme Court, the Fourth the place that was searched. The warrant authorized
Amendment sometimes carries a “judicially created Officer Heckard to search
remedy” that allows a defendant to suppress
evidence obtained through an unreasonable search GPS coordinates and registered owner
or seizure. But the so-called exclusionary rule does information of cell phone number [XXX]-[XXX]-
not operate vicariously. Rather, a criminal 0889. This is to include its location from current
defendant seeking suppression must show that “his date and time of August 15, 2017 at 0813 hours to
own Fourth Amendment rights [were] infringed by August 16, 2017 at 0000 hours. Cell phone number
the search [or] seizure which he seeks to [XXX]-[XXX]-0889 is activated through Verizon
challenge.” Wireless and is currently being used by Jessica
Today we call this principle “Fourth Nicole Davis.
Amendment standing.” Fourth Amendment
standing “is not a jurisdictional question.” It is
instead “more properly subsumed under Thus, the Government sought and Judge
substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine,” Jefferson granted sixteen hours of access to the

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal